PROPOSAL: The Ohio Association of Track and Field and Cross Country Coaches is proposing that the OHSAA expand the number of divisions in the track and field tournament from three to four. With the number of schools currently participating in track and field, adding another division would deviate from OHSAA General Sports Regulation 16.2, which states a fourth tournament division cannot be added unless more than 750 schools sponsor a sport (in 2017, there were 690 boys teams and 633 girls teams sponsoring track and field).

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: While adding more opportunities for students to experience the OHSAA tournaments and win championships may be positive, adding another division will likely mean additional concerns for member schools – including costs – and more costs to the OHSAA to conduct track and field tournaments. For schools, an additional division will mean additional time needed to conduct the tournaments, which could result in more days out of school for students, and schools could see additional costs (transportation, housing for the state tournament and the possibility of the OHSAA Board of Directors invoking Constitution Article 5-6-1 (7) in which it could mandate entry fees for schools with track and field to help offset some of the additional expenses). For the OHSAA, more costs would be seen for the additional time needed for facility rentals and for more officials and staff.

REQUEST: To assist the OHSAA Board of Directors on how to proceed with this proposal, a brief survey has been developed and a link to it has been sent to member school principals. We ask that you and your boys and girls track and field head coaches consult with your principal so that the OHSAA receives a consensus opinion from your school. The survey will be live through 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 21.

Thank you for your assistance!

KevinL

12-06-17 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinL
(Post 6936881)

it could mandate entry fees for schools with track and field to help offset some of the additional expenses).

Has this been done in any other sport?

Run4Life

12-06-17 11:32 AM

Back in the 70's and early 80's schools were required to pay an entry fee to help with the cost.

tmk

12-06-17 12:15 PM

We still paid into the very early 90's. Of course, back then if you qualified to the state meet, the OHSAA also gave you a check for reimbursement ($254 for our '91 team, as an example).

ccrunner609

12-06-17 12:42 PM

The OHSAA numbers for adding divisions seem to only apply to CC and Track. Other sports are getting extra divisions that arent even close.

I have seen the coaches proposal 2 times. 4-6 division proposals were generated. I guess the 4 team proposal was the one they went with.

I personally would like 4 divisions. My Comets have no business competing against the likes of Glenn Oak, Hudson, Solon, Canton, etc. I wouldn't mind being in a division facing schools like Marlington, Lake, Louisville, Hoban, Woodridge, SVSM, and other schools in that range. It would be tougher than our current accommodations in D2. But Still much easier than anything in our current D1, and there would not be that constant stress every two years over whether we are gonna be in a really difficult situation or a much easier one (relatively). Instead, we'd get a nice stable compromise division every year.

mathking

12-06-17 01:44 PM

I also wish they would be a little more honest about the number of teams participating. The arbitrary "9 athletes at district to constitute a team" rule significantly reduces the number of teams. If they looked at the number of athletes involved it would change things significantly. (That was one of the arguments put forth for football's division structure.)

Running Man 101

12-06-17 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathking
(Post 6937213)

I also wish they would be a little more honest about the number of teams participating. The arbitrary "9 athletes at district to constitute a team" rule significantly reduces the number of teams. If they looked at the number of athletes involved it would change things significantly. (That was one of the arguments put forth for football's division structure.)

Put the top 80-100 largest schools in the top division (somewhere around Wadsworth to Franklin Heights).

Why in the world would you have to host two divisions? Plenty of schools around. Plenty of officials.

ccrunner609

12-06-17 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running Man 101
(Post 6937243)

Why in the world would you have to host two divisions? Plenty of schools around. Plenty of officials.

plenty of officials???? maybe in small pockets of the state.

Timing systems also will be tough to get on thursdays and saturdays.

KevinL

12-06-17 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccrunner609
(Post 6937424)

plenty of officials???? maybe in small pockets of the state.

Timing systems also will be tough to get on thursdays and saturdays.

I expect there would be 2 divisions running on Wed/Fri and 2 on Thu/Sat.

The only place I see an abundance of officials is watching every 20 feet of lane lines at state.

CC Track Fan

12-06-17 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running Man 101
(Post 6937240)

Put the top 80-100 largest schools in the top division (somewhere around Wadsworth to Franklin Heights).

Exactly. They should do this with nearly every sport similar to what is done in football.

ccrunner609

12-07-17 07:25 AM

The division added would be a super division 1 like in football. I think the number is something like 64 largest schools in the state. The other 3 divisions would be split up evenly.

So basically the bottom 30ish schools in DI and DII now would benefit by being the largest schools in what would be DII and DIII. THe dominent small schools like Minster could really care less. THere post season competition would still be in their divisions.

EuclidandViren

12-07-17 08:13 AM

I like the idea of having 2 divisions compete on each day of the tournament.

Wednesday and Friday- D1 and D2.

Thursday and Saturday D3 and D4.

*run the normal format we run now but just 2 heats in everything in the finals.
**Prelims would last a little longer but not much. Due to the time schedule right now there is usually some downtime between each event. I bet it would only add 1 hour to 1:30 minutes to each day.

This would allow for some extra time for rest and recovery of the top athletes in distance and sprints. This would simulate the rest and recovery from 20 years ago before timing when we have 4 rounds of sprints for the sprinters.

ENA2

12-07-17 10:15 AM

Several things about the proposal.

First, DAYS/COST....The State Meet would/could be done in Two days. Friday/Saturday as it is now. D-IV would have to start by 8:30 am and DI would be over about 8:00pm each day. I have a time schedule that I will try to post here. Just start an hour or so earlier and shorten the time between divisions to 30 Minute instead of 60 minutes.
This would be no substantial addional cost the addional $ for tickets, concessions, t-shirts, etc. would more than cover anything
-The rental of the Stadium would be the same... 2 days.... I think the rate is by the day and not the hour
-Would need no more officials... but would have to distribute them more effectly IMO.
- the timers would charge a little more for another Meet.

The contingency plan for "bad weather" would be the same as it is now... not sure what that is, but Jesse Owens has very effective lighting for after dark.
There IS lighting at the trhowing area, just not sure if it's good enough.

Secondly,TIME/MONEY This is Just for Track and Field and and would NOT have to cost any more time or $ for member schools. Districts would take 2 days, Regional 2 days and State 2 days... Just like it does Now. Example: For Regional, D3 and D1 would be on Wed/Friday (as it is now) and D4 and D2 could be on Thurs/Saturday.

IMO the ADDITIONAL INFORMATION part of the proposal can be misleading, as the $ generated by more "butts in the seats" would outweigh any addional monetary expenses. All those parents and fans would spend more money for hotels, food and all other goods outside the stadium as well. Good for all business.

Thirdly, - NUMBERS....Not sure the top division would be "like football" with only the top 60-70 schools in enrollment would be DI. As Mathking stated, if the OHSAA used 4 instead of 9 as the number of athletes to constitute a "team", then Ohio boys would be aver 750 and girls would be close to that.
I think DI, as it is now, may be cut in half to make the top 2 divisions, but i am sure the disperity in DIII may be looked at too as a school with 25 boys in the upper 3 grades are not on the equal playing field with schools with 160, as it is now.

Just some observations.

ENA2

12-07-17 11:07 AM

When looking at the proposal. it seems that they are not making it very attractive for principals (or administrators) to be in favor of it. Many do not know a lot about track or the State tourney and will read and assume that it will cost time and money for their school. bottom line should be what is best for the kids and the sport but cost has to be considered and I think how the proposal is written may mislead some.

panott

12-07-17 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENA2
(Post 6937958)

When looking at the proposal. it seems that they are not making it very attractive for principals (or administrators) to be in favor of it. Many do not know a lot about track or the State tourney and will read and assume that it will cost time and money for their school. bottom line should be what is best for the kids and the sport but cost has to be considered and I think how the proposal is written may mislead some.

Track coaches must talk to their A.D.'s. The way the thing was sent out the additional info was very negative (In my opinion). Please talk to your A.D. Most are clueless about Track and Field so you need to educate them. If they just read what was sent to them they will say no!

Running Man 101

12-07-17 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccrunner609
(Post 6937763)

The division added would be a super division 1 like in football. I think the number is something like 64 largest schools in the state. The other 3 divisions would be split up evenly.

So basically the bottom 30ish schools in DI and DII now would benefit by being the largest schools in what would be DII and DIII. THe dominent small schools like Minster could really care less. THere post season competition would still be in their divisions.

We are solidly in D1 currently, so we wouldn't move, but it would get the monster schools into their own classification which would help us in Track (CC as well if they do it there).

Oddly enough the total number of boys in high school in the last period was 205,000 ish. Top 64 schools as you mention are 49,000 ish. Four divisions puts 50,000 per group. I think that is a better way. Have a similar number of kids per division, not teams.

ENA2

12-07-17 02:50 PM

Running Man (and others),
Although I may agree with you about the divisions, I don't believe they (the OHSAA)will consider these numbers for any sport. they will probably devide the divisions like they do baseball...whcih has 4 divisions, is a spring sport and uses 9 as the number to determine if they have a "team" for each season.
From my experience, what happens with football has no baring on Track & field, but baseball sure does.

What happens in football has no bearing on "non-revenue" sports and Football only looks at the unequal distribution of teams for DI. Really, they justify if for football, so they can make more money. They can make more money with anohter division in track, but not to the extent that they do with Football.

Mr. Slippery

12-07-17 03:20 PM

The only way I would support a 4th division is if they did it like football with a super division with the top "X" number of enrollments and then 3 divisions below that with equal numbers of teams. My concern is the amount of teams currently in DIII that already struggle to field enough relays and competitors in the more technical events. Under 4 divisions of equal amounts of teams, the quality of competition in the relays and technical events might become spread too thin in DIV.

ENA2

12-07-17 09:12 PM

I would agree that relays in the DIV would not be on par with the larger divisions but that is the difference in the divisions now. The relays and the depth is better in each division...that's just the odds (Math). I also agree that they should use a different formula than simply dividing into four Div. with about the same number of schools, but the proposal does not address that and I don't think they do that for any other non-football sport.
The proposal really is not very clear, so it is my experience, that it is not really serious yet. I hope they come back with a formula for dividing; like top 15% in DI, next 25% in DII, 25% in DIII, and 30% in DIV.
This would allow there still to be quality in the smaller divisions as DIV would only loose about 20 schools from DIII presently, DII and DIII would have about 50 less schools and there would be about 100 schools in DI. This is very rough math, and depends on if you are using girls or boys numbers... Still, I think there should be a proposal the use 4 instead of 9 compete at the District to determine a "team"in track. If that were to happen, then we would be at 4 divisions.

Note:
if divided equally, my school would maybe be DIII out of 4, but often there are some smaller schools that have top notch athletes in all individual events. Even the technical events like pole vault, jumps, hurdles and the throws. Depth is where it may really be seen to be "weak"
Example may be 1st in the DIV shot could be 58' 2nd at 55' then 50' and 45' may score and some areas would qualify with a 43' guy to State. (I use the boy's shot as there seems to often be big strong individuals in sparsely populated rural areas - how big is Waynesfield-Goshen? Paint Valley?, or Windom?)
ON THE OTHER HAND, maybe those kids are motivated by the chance they have to advance to give track & field a serious shot or are motivated to work harder to learn their event. This is what has happened in the girls pole vault as the growth in that event has been amazing over the last decade.

ccrunner609

12-07-17 09:31 PM

I think we are past the "watering" down of competition. We have girls DIII schools running sub 4 minute 4x4's that arent making the state meet.

Ohio has 100,000 plus kids in track. 4 divisions is fair.

EuclidandViren

12-08-17 05:23 AM

After reading this several times I believe that OHSAA has set this up to fail.

$$$$. Most AD's and principals will see this and see an entry fee for the state tournament for schools and will automatically vote it down.

This is setup to fail. Almost as if OHSAA felt obligated to put this out there by the OATCCC.

I do not see this having a chance.

ccrunner609

12-08-17 07:20 AM

How much is the fee? OATCCC charges $7 per athlete for state indoor. I am sure that generates a ton of Money.

Running Man 101

12-08-17 09:25 AM

By equal boys student population (202,475), cutoffs would be roughly (cutting off the number of schools with minimum 50 students):
D1: 67 schools with Sycamore the last one.
D2: 109 schools with Garfield at the bottom.
D3: 248 schools with Indian Creek at the bottom.
D4: 326 schools

If you keep D1 the same as above and do three equal sizes:
D2: 231 schools Wyoming would be bottom of list.
D3: 231 schools Southeastern would be at the bottom.
D4: 231 schools

Personally I think it is a little silly to base the groups on total number of schools, because it skews the entire distribution to the smaller schools. Grouping them by total number of students in reality makes the total number of participants probably more uniform. If you are a D3 kid why should you have to compete against fewer number of kids to get to state than a D1 kid? I'm not talking about the QUALITY of the competition, just the number of competitors.

ccrunner609

12-08-17 10:00 AM

^^^^I think we all see the merits in that but the OHSAA is not going to flip their procedures for one sport.

mathking

12-08-17 11:06 AM

I think the most fair solution is probably some middle ground between just using number of athletes and just using number of schools. Track and Field is both an individual and a team sport. If we "equalize" the number of participating athletes we make the kids at the smaller schools compete against a lot more kids at the district level of competition and we make the team (and relay) competitions in the bigger divisions relatively much easier. That said, I agree that I think it is unlikely the OHSAA would make TF significantly different than other sports in how they do divisions, because the last time they did this, in XC, it didn't exactly go well.

Run4Life

12-08-17 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccrunner609
(Post 6938693)

^^^^I think we all see the merits in that but the OHSAA is not going to flip their procedures for one sport.

They have already in Lacrosse, and many years ago in bringing girls CC back to 3 divisions after their numbers dropped below the 500 teams level.

CC Track Fan

12-08-17 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Run4Life
(Post 6938923)

They have already in Lacrosse, and many years ago in bringing girls CC back to 3 divisions after their numbers dropped below the 500 teams level.

Also team wrestling had less than 500 when they made that a sport and has 3 division now with only 402 teams. Individual wrestling has dropped to 483 teams and still has 3 divisions.

Softball has been below 750 for a several years and still have 4 division. Years ago added second division for swimming before having over 250 schools. So there are plenty of examples where they didn't follow standard procedures for number of divisions.

On the cost thing not sure how they can't make money running a track meets but since they can't why don't they just use all the money they are now making form CC now that they charge for regional meet and cover the extra cost of additional Track division.